Trump and the world: ill-fated US primacy

In two recent, world mediated, speeches one at the World Economic Forum meetings in Davos and one in front of Congress in Washington, US President Donald Trump clearly revealed what America first means for the world. In Davos, Trump acted as the salesman in chief of USA Inc., highlighting the primacy of US firms, US workers, US universities and the attractive economic and financial conditions offered to any business that would choose to invest in the country. US foreign policy would make sure that access to the US market would be selectively open to those goods, investments and people that would bring value and be respectful of America. The preferred tools of international action will be bilateral, possibly regional but there was hardly any mention of multilateral platforms such as the World Trade Organisation.

A few days later in front of Congress for his first state of the union address, the US president restated the economic dimension of America first in declaring that “the era of economic surrender is over.” The address put much emphasis on the second key pillar of Trump action, “restoring our strength and standing abroad.” He identified a series of threats, rogue regimes, terrorists and geopolitical rivals China and Russia, and argued strongly against complacency and concessions as they “only invite aggression and provocation,” claiming that “unmatched power is the surest means of our defence.”   

What comes out of those speeches, and preceding action during the first year of Trump presidency, is a US foreign policy focused on a search for world primacy, dealing with geopolitical competition through increased military interventions and spending, as well as the use of reciprocity and economic sanctions. In short, beware others, America is back as the hegemonic country and has no intention to let you spoil the party.  

Should we all become very alarmed about the consequences of such a plan for the world prosperity and stability? One could argue that after all US hegemony has been the cornerstone of the post WWII order and a world without a hegemon would enjoy less collective goods, such as the UN and the dozens of key international organisations, as smaller countries pay less than their share. As amenable to the virtues of hegemony as one can be, there is however one source of concern with Trump’s version of US hegemony: in contrast to the preceding versions it is not premised on the dual promotion of open, integrated markets and open, democratic political systems. Most analysts argue that it is the liberal dimension of hegemony that brings better perspectives for the world rather than hegemony itself.

More fundamentally though, one can seriously challenge the idea that liberal hegemony has delivered its promises for prosperity and peace in the world. The world may be more prosperous on the whole but the life of billions of people is still very brutish and nasty to paraphrase the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. The quest for dominance, in its illiberal and liberal versions, is dubious in terms of impact and ill-fated in the current world marked by interdependence and a multiplicity of actors and instruments to “govern” it. What is needed is such a world is leadership.

Whereas leadership should by no means be the prerogative of one country, the world needs the US to exert some leadership in a system of shared governance and shared responsibilities. The economic, technological, military and intellectual assets of the USA are to be invested into the collective search for solutions to the set of wicked problems facing the world today and tomorrow from climate change to migration flows and human security. Yet, for this to happen, the USA have first to want to act as a leader. This means to put the priority on listening to others’ needs and concerns, to avoid creating negative externalities to others and to embrace cosmopolitan views. All this means a significant departure from posturing, bragging about its own superiority and putting a blinded faith in financial capitalism. Second, others have to want the USA to exert leadership. This is where liberalism, as a synonym of political, intellectual, social and economic openness and tolerance, comes into the picture. Liberalism in that meaning is the best asset for the US to exert leadership on the world stage. The current focus on dominance should be abandoned as soon as possible both for the world’s and the US best interests.

This article is part of my series "The Director's words" which features in our Executive Education newsletters. Follow us on LinkedIn>